1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Regular Session
Monday, January 8, 2007
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H A."BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4
0
c)c)
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
z
I N D E X
January 8, 2007
--- Commissioners' Comments
1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
designate Commissioners' and Judge's liaison
appointments for various functions for 2007
1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
regarding report from Eric Maloney, First
Responder Coordinator
1.3 Appoint two new ESD #2 directors to fill
expired terms
Review of Kerr County Juvenile Detention Facility
first quarter budget revenues
1.5 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
schedule and receive detailed presentation from
Headwaters Groundwater Conservation District (HGCD)
consulting Geologist Feather Wilson on aquifer
modeling in Kerr County. Presentation to be
scheduled for January 22, 2007
1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
correspondence from Milton E. Taylor regarding
easement to his property adjacent to Kerr County's
Flat Rock Lake Park (new section)
1.7 Public Hearing concerning Revision of Plat for
Lots 5 & 6, Cypress Springs, Phase I, in Pct. 4
1.8	Consider/discuss, take appropriate	action
	concerning Revision of Plat for Lo	ts 5 & 6,
	Cypress Springs Estates, Phase I,	Pct. 9
1.17	Consider/discuss, take appropriate	action to
	approve Final Plat of Lasso Ranch,	Pct. 3
1.9	Public Hearing concerning Revision	of Plat for
	Lots 16 & 17, Bear Creek Ranch Est	ates, Pct. 1
1.10	Consider/discuss, take appropriate	action for
	Revision of Plat for Lots 16 & 17,	Bear Creek
	Ranch Estates, Pct. 1	
1.11 Public Hearing concerning Revision of Plat for
Lots 124 B & 131A of Falling Water, Pct. 3
PAGE
5
9
16
17
24
36
51
51
53
57
57
60
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X (Continued)
January 8, 2007
1.12 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
Revision of Plat for Lot 124B & 131A of Falling
Water, Pct. 3
1.13 Public Hearing concerning Revision of Plat for
Lot 1 of Heartland Acres, Pct. 2
1.14 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
Revision of Plat for Lot 1 of Heartland Acres,
Pct. 2
1.15 Public Hearing concerning Revision of Plat for
Lot 12, 13A & 13B, Riverside Park, Pct. 4
1.16 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
Revision of Lots 12, 13A & 13B, Riverside Park,
Pct. 4
1.19 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
bring new hire in at 13-2 due to six years prior
experience using budgeted funds from prior employee
1.18 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to allow
merit/step increase using budgeted funds from prior
employee
1.20 Public Hearing on Revised Kerr County Subdivision
Rules and Regulations
1.21 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to adopt
revised Kerr County Subdivision Rules/Regulations
4.1 Pay Bills
4.2 Budget Amendments
4.3 Late Bills
4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports
5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee
Assignments
--- Adjourned
PAGE
60
75
75
77
78
79
81
85
88
95
96
99
100
110
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Monday, January 8, 2007, at 9:00 a.m., a regular
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let me call to order, if I
might, this regular meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners
Court scheduled and posted for this time and date, Monday,
January the 8th, 2007, at 9 a.m. It's that time now.
Commissioner Oehler?
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there's
any member of the audience or the public that wishes to be
heard on any matter that is not a listed agenda item, feel
free to come forward at this time. If you wish to be heard on
a particular agenda item, we'd ask that you fill out a
participation form. They can be found at the back of the
room. It's not essential, but it helps me to not miss you
when we get to that item. If, for some reason, you should not
have filled out a participation form and you want to be heard
on an agenda item, get my attention in some manner so that you
can be heard, and I'll be happy to recognize you. But as to
any matter that is not a listed agenda item that any member of
the audience or public wishes to bring to our attention,
please feel free to come forward at this time.
1-8-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L1
22
23
24
25
5
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing no one coming forward, we'll
fact that -- you know, the new bridge project that's being
proposed on Highway 39, and there are very few that seem to be
excited about this. There are more that are upset about it,
and so that will play -- play out shortly. I think we're
going to have a workshop here; TexDOT will come and meet with
us and give the public a chance to air their frustrations or
their -- their applause, I guess you might say. I don't think
there will be very many that will be in favor of the
$16 million project that's been put together in less than a
year, and the need does not seem to be -- be there, according
to the public. Other than that, I don't really have much.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just want to piggy-back on
put this program together, and we meet at least once a year
with TexDOT on a 10-year plan, trying to keep long-range
things going that are important to the -- really important to
the community. And I don't recall those -- upgrading those
bridges out there as a part of that, and I'm just a little bit
i-a-u~
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
bumfuzzled by it. But, as you know, the Dallas Cowboys are on
vacation, and football season's over. Kind of difficult.
And, of course, we have to put up with that round ball thing
for a few more months, and -- but the exciting part about it,
track and field is upon us, so we -- indoor season's going,
and that's, of course, the most exciting sport of all, so I'm
pretty excited.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I'm really excited
about today. We're going to -- we're going to do some things
that are wonderful.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're going to breeze
through it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're going to breeze through
this thing. It's good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's it. That's all I
know.
JUDGE TINLEY: Bill?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I saw a notice in the paper
that Hilmar Pressler died. Hilmar Pressler, an old-time
stalwart of the community, and one of the founding fathers of
Pressler-Thompson, and that's -- that, as most people know, is
the firm that for many years has done our external audit.
There'll be a memorial service for Hilmar at Zion Lutheran
i-a-o~
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Church this afternoon at 3 o'clock. The only other thing is,
I'll remind the Court, I'm conducting a public hearing
Thursday in Center Point, the first phase of the sewer project
for public input, and let the engineers tell the public how
they're beginning to see a wastewater collection system
shaping up. That will be 7 o'clock at the school cafeteria
this coming Thursday night. I'm kind of like Commissioner
Baldwin; I don't recall, Commissioner, that when we met with
TexDOT and set priorities, I don't remember that ever
surfacing. We talked about 39 on the south side of the river,
talked about a lot of things, but I don't remember that being
on the priority list or wish list from Kerr County. Somebody
had a pipe dream someplace. That's it, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Couple things. I see
Mr. Lipscomb in the audience, so I will bring up one thing. I
do plan to put on the agenda soon library funding a little
bit. I want to just kind of bring it up again. I know we
received a report from the library on the library district,
and they thought that that was not a good idea. I just want
to remind the Court and the public that I had a -- at our last
joint meeting with the City, I thought it was something that
needed to be resolved, and with a long-term solution in mind,
and if the library district isn't the one, I would really like
to hear from the Library Board as to what they think our
1-8-07
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
options are, what we should do. So, it'll be on the agenda to
I really don't want this to be a
I want to try
to get this handled way ahead of time. I certainly know we
have a problem there of funding of it, and different thought
process on how -- what we should do there, so that'll be on
the agenda.
League of Women Voters has asked me to participate
in a water forum that they're putting on; I believe it's the
25th, 26th, something like that, of this month. I told them I
would. They -- I'm not sure of the -- I know the purpose of
it is to educate the public on water, but other than that, I
don't have a whole lot of details. Ann Sullivan asked me to
do that. And the other thing is, I have not yet, but I do
plan to meet with the new members of the court in Kendall
County, and we have in my precinct, as you all know, certain
things pending between them. Some of them I won't touch that
will be controversial on the road side, but -- at least not
without Rex present, but EMS, I want to keep that trying to
move, and what we're going to do with that. Those who haven't
been into Falling Waters and The Reserve subdivisions, they
have just exploded; there's probably upwards of around 100
homes in these two subdivisions now, and it's becoming more
and more of an EMS problem. That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Like you, Commissioner
1 8-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1L
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
Letz, I'd like to see some direction to the library solution
approaching budget time, and it's a contentious issue. It
would be nice if we knew somewhat in advance the way that
thing is going. I'd like to talk a little bit about something
that I think we've all kind of taken for granted. I -- I read
continuously in the local news about various individuals in
the public service, volunteer service. We've got a tremendous
of people putting in a lot of hours that achieve a whole lot
of success that otherwise wouldn't be available if -- if they
didn't step forward and do that work, and I -- I think we need
to recognize that continuously and -- and to thank these
people that offer their time and volunteer for the various
things that they do out here in various aspects of public
service. So, when you see these folks, thank them for their
work and tell them how much you appreciate their work. That's
all I've got.
Let's get on with the agenda, if we might. First
item on the agenda is to consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action to designate the Commissioners' and Judges'
liaison appointments in various functions for calendar year
'07. I put this on the agenda because I'm given to understand
that's an annual type situation that we like to review and
reallocate or discuss as necessary. The -- the backup that
1 8 07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
I've given you there is what I think, with certain
interlineations, is our current state of assignments. If I'm
not correct on that, I apologize, but I think the one I was
working from is 'O5, and I think since then we've made a few
adjustments that I've indicated. But I put that out for your
consideration, and let's decide where we want to go on it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to keep the
assignments that I have.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would -- the two -- two of
them I would like to stay on. One of them is Airport Board.
I think it's a little bit -- it's important, at least for the
next couple years, that we keep a little continuity on that.
Ag Barn, I've been on there quite a long time. I'd like to
have it one more year. After that, I know Commissioner Oehler
traditionally has done a lot of work with the ag group, but if
he would like that, I would be -- you know, if I can get one
more year, I'd appreciate it. There's some plans that I have
that I'd like to work on.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Fine with me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, yes, I would like to be
back on it at some point, but, you know, if you want to do
another year, that's fine with me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Those are the two main ones.
The other one is 911, and that's -- you know, I don't mind.
1-8-n7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
I'll be glad to continue or -- or not. It doesn't --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nothing going on there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There may be a little bit, with
the dispatch, possibly there, but I don't see that that --
this assignment makes that much difference with that. And so,
I mean, I'm kind of happy with where they are.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to keep the airport
and AACOG, those two things for sure. I'm a little conflicted
about the Ag Barn. If you want to get back into that,
Commissioner, I'll be happy to cough that up to you.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'd love to.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And, let's see. Judge, you
and I are doing the economic development. That's fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well that's a -- that's a
train load.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One that's not -- actually it is
on here. Law enforcement. It has Buster. I'm currently in
that spot, I believe. Am I not, Buster?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't look at me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm pretty sure I am. I'm
the -- I think in this spot now. I'll be glad to keep it or
not keep it; doesn't make any difference.
JODGE TINLEY: Okay. Are we going to change that
1-8-07
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
over to Commissioner Letz? Okay. Commissioner Oehler? That
kind of leaves old pickings -- kind of leaves your pickings
where they were, with one modification.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, that's okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: That will work for you as indicated
there? Just move over Commissioner Nicholson's assignments
over to you, and --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Doesn't seem like anybody else
wants to volunteer for it, so I guess I should do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you would -- I don't mind,
you know, giving up the law enforcement and I don't mind
taking over some of these if you want to do something
different.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't -- O.S.S.F. and
Environmental Health, I guess that also includes the Animal
Control? Well, Animal Control is a separate deal.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Separate deal.
JUDGE TINLEY: But it would also go with that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't have to.
JUDGE TINLEY: Does that work for you?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I figure I have to do
something. I can't just sit here and let the rest of the
Court do it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
1-8-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, where are we on the
juvenile? I see that you scratched out me, which is okay; I'm
not asking to get back. I didn't know what Commissioner
Baldwin --
JUDGE TINLEY: I made an error on that. I should
have scratched out Commissioner Baldwin, because he -- he
deferred to me on that, and --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- I scratched you out instead of
him.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, it's you and me on that?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Juvenile, okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: I should have noted that I made that
error.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If you remember, last year at
this time when we made this election, it wasn't a real good
time for me to be on a juvenile --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I recall.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- with the juvenile group.
I'd have been out there with bulldozers. But I've changed my
mind now.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, is that -- just leave --
1-8-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
Dave Nicholson was on the Library Board. Is that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That puts me in the hot seat
there?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can settle that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's not a hot seat, it's an
opportunity.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's -- there are a lot of
opportunities.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's good to have a fresh view
on the library.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what we need, fresh
eyes.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, what was your current thinking
about the juvenile facility?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Williams and Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay, I couldn't tell whether
there had been a change of heart because there's been a change
of circumstances. You know, I thought maybe you were -- okay.
All right. Does that pretty well thrash that out?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So we can get the
administrative assistant to prepare a list, Judge?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that the
modifications made be adopted.
i-e-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Any question or discussion on the motion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let's get a new order so we know
where we are for next year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Exactly. That will be helpful.
COMMISSIONER oEHLER: Is that -- I have one
question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is there -- I assume that
somewhere there is a schedule of when regular meetings are for
these -- say, for instance, the Library Board.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sure Mr. Lipscomb would be most
pleased to tell you exactly when they meet.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I just need to be informed to
know when to appear.
JUDGE TINLEY: I got a sneaking -- I got a sneaking
feeling, come break, he's going to be conversing with you to
let you know exactly what you need to know.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. I thought that was --
i-e-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
MR. LIPSCOMB: I'll be back.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 2; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action regarding report from
Eric Maloney, First Responder Coordinator. Commissioner
Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I want to pull
that item. We're not ready to do it yet, but we'll be back
next meeting. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's move to Item 3, if we
might; appoint two new ESD Number 2 directors to fill
unexpired terms. Commissioner Oehler.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We have two ESD Board members
that are not asking to be reappointed; their terms are up. We
need two new members to be appointed to that. Their first
meeting is on this coming Thursday, the first meeting of the
year. And two people I would like to put forward are Garland
Reece, who is here, and Perrin Wells. Perrin will be here
shortly, but I guess he's running a little bit late. Garland
has lived up on Beech -- Byas Springs Road, for quite a few
years, and retired airline pilot. Perrin Wells has worked for
the Texas Wild Game Co-Op in Ingram for 23 years, and I asked
both of them if they would serve, and they've both agreed to
do so. So, I would move that we appoint Garland Reece and
Perrin Wells to the ESD Board of Directors Number 2.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that motion.
i-e-a~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item as indicated. Any question or discussion
on the motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Oehler, would
you give me the names of the folks that are going off?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Cleo Meadow and Wes Patton.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. This is an exciting
time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or comments on
the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'd also comment that they
need to have their oath of office administered in the County
Clerk's office, and see Nadene and she will get you signed up.
Thank you for doing it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Mr. Reece.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Let's move to Item 4,
review of the Kerr County Juvenile Detention Facility first
quarter budget revenues. Mr. Stanton?
MR. STANTON: Good morning. I've given you
gentlemen a copy of -- probably a little bit more information
1-8-U7
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
than you really want. But if you have any questions, I'd be
happy to try to explain the numbers or -- or whatever you
need. Just some brief highlights. If you look at the very
first page, this is a report that's done by the Juvenile
Probation Commission, and we've -- during the first three
months of the budget year, we've detained 109 kids out at the
facility, with a total of -- total detention days of 1,350
days. We've averaged 15 kids out there for the first three
months. If you go over to -- it's probably Page 5, our
projected budget, if you look at the very top of the page, the
projected budget -- or revenue for the juvenile facility was
303,000 -- $303,300. So far, we've billed out $122,086 in the
first quarter, which is about 40 percent of the projected
revenue in the first three months, so we're ahead of schedule.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does that -- does that
include Kerr County kids?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And so Kerr County sends kids
out there, and you turn around and bill the hand that just fed
I You?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
MR. STANTON: If you'll skip over two more pages, I
think this is probably the most interesting one that
Mr. Baldwin will find. It's a breakdown of the population out
i-a-o~
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
at the facility by counties. And the -- or, I'm sorry, it's
the estimates and totals. We -- to make to it our projected
budget, we needed to bill 280 -- 280 billable days a month.
If you'll look at the first gray column -- the second gray
column is the actual, what we've been billing for the first
three months. We've actually been billing almost 400 -- or a
little over 450 days per month, so --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 280 meets your budget?
MR. STANTON: 280 meets the budget. We're billing
450. The next --
JUDGE TINLEY: The budget was based upon just under
a daily average of 11 residents, and you're running about 15,
i so --
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir, at this point.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- that's the magic number. Plus we
went up slightly on the daily rate, too.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: From $83 to $90.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. The very next
page is the one -- I'm sorry, Mr. Baldwin -- is the one that
breaks it down into the population per county. As you can
see, Kerr County -- Kerr County's about 61 percent of our
population, which is actually down from last year. We've
gotten a big increase from Burnet County from the 33rd
Judicial District. We're starting to get all their kids now,
i-a-o~
20
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
so that's kind of offsetting Kerr County's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you a question.
The Judge just said that we budgeted for just under 11 kids
per day.
MR. STANTON: The revenue. The revenue.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does that affect the manpower
in any way?
MR. STANTON: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, where -- where are we --
how many -- let's see, try to get the -- as far as state
standards are concerned, the ratio between employees and kids,
where are we in that?
MR. STANTON: We're fine.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How many are we staffed to
handle?
MR. STANTON: We're staffed to handle -- excuse me.
We're staffed to handle 24 kids.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 24, okay. That's what I way
looking for.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the minimum that we can
really staff at? Or could we staff at a lower level?
MR. STANTON: That's the minimum we can staff at
because of the male/female ratios, and --
i-e-o~
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can do it with the
staffing in place? You can do one to 24?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have one kid, same staffing;
24 kids, same staffing?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. And the most we can hold in
the facility is 25, and we've been up to 29 twice this year so
far.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you.
MR. STANTON: But the rest of it is -- is basically
breakdowns by county. Each county's broken down by the number
of kids they've detained, the cost, and those types and
numbers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kevin, when T went through
there, I didn't see an expenditure.
MR. STANTON: No, sir, this is all just -- I was
just doing the revenue. The expenditures were online. The
only thing that we're running a little short in at this point,
which is -- I'm hoping will decrease now that the holidays are
over, is the -- the money that we were using to pay
part'timers. We had a lot of people taking off end of year,
trying to burn up the comp time that they had earned last
year. We were having to fill those with part-timers, plus we
i-e-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22
had quite a few people taking off during the holidays.
Hopefully the use of part-timers will slow down now throughout
the rest of the year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where are we in terns of
getting rid of the comp time, Kevin?
MR. STANTON: We're done.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're finished with it?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir, we're finished with it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good.
MR. STANTON: We're online with -- with the rest of
the county now that -- we're paying it out every -- I believe
it's 30 days, like the rest of the county employees.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just for Commissioner
Oehler's benefit, there was a huge amount of accumulated comp
time as a result of -- of what was taking place out there
before we cut it back with Kevin.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1,700 hours or something.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Wow.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've gotten rid of most of
that -- all of that. Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you see -- I mean, you have
no complaints about the operations as currently staffed and
the way we're doing things right now? You don't recommend
doing any kind of change out there?
MR. STANTON: Not at this point. I only -- I mean,
i-e-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23
I was a little surprised that we're averaging 15 kids a day
out there. But the -- the ratio as far as the number of kids
we're -- that are being detained, as far as the number of days
-- the billable days, the -- the percentages haven't gone up
the same. Actually, what it is, we're getting more kids, but
we're actually keeping the kids longer that we're getting now,
so I think that's one of the reasons for the increase in the
billable days.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the reason for that?
MR. STANTON: I believe it's the types of crimes
that are being committed. Plus we're getting a lot of kids
that have been on probation multiple times, and they're having
to hold them longer, looking for different types of
residential placement and those types of things.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we're getting the worst --
MR. STANTON: Well, we've got -- an example is,
since I've been out here and since I've been in Kerr County, I
could be wrong,	but	we've	got	a young	man out	there	for
capital murder	right	now,	and	this is	-- we've	never	had
anybody with that type of charge on him before. So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Were there any counties that
fell by the wayside as a result of the per diem increase?
MR. STANTON: No, sir. No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: What have other facilities -- similar
i-e-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
preadjudication?
MR. STANTON: You know, when we were looking at it
before, before we changed our rates, it was -- it was anywhere
from -- I mean, the highs were, like, in the 101's to 105's,
all the way down to $80 a day. The surrounding counties that
were around, Atascosa County, San Marcos or Hays County, I
believe they're right at 90 to 95, somewhere in there, the
same as we are.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any more questions for
We appreciate your report.
Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Kevin.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move, if we might, to Item 5;
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to schedule and
receive a detailed presentation from Headwaters Groundwater
Conservation District consulting geologist Feather Wilson on
aquifer modeling in Kerr County, the presentation to include
water availability of the Middle Trinity, Lower Trinity,
Edwards Trinity, Glen Rose, and other aquifers based on
scientific data and consulting work done for Headwaters, and
present status of Groundwater Availability Modeling efforts
and the use of same to determine the water availability in
specific areas of Kerr County, such presentation to be
scheduled for Commissioners Court meeting of January the 22nd,
2007, at 11 a.m. Wow, that was long.
i-e-a~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. That was
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, now we can move to the
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For the better part of the
the need to -- for us and for the public at large to have a
better understanding of what it is that they're -- Headwaters'
consulting geologist has been doing with respect to aquifer
modeling. I believe he's under contract to Headwaters to do
that, and so we thought the best way to do that -- and we
spoke with several individual members of that board. The best
way to do it would be to invite Mr. Wilson to come to court
and make a presentation, and the public at large, as well as
the Court, could understand exactly what's taking place, and
have -- have the opportunity to ask questions about water
availability and -- and some of the determinations he's made
in his -- in his modeling efforts, and so that's the purpose
of it. We put it on the agenda today just for the purpose of
the Court knowing exactly what it is that we're proposing to
do, and if the Court has no objection, it'll be on the agenda
for January 22 at 11 o'clock. And in the meantime, I will
e-mail the agenda item as you see it, unless we change it, to
the Headwaters board president so they know exactly what it is
1 8-07
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
that we're proposing. I see three members of the board out
there -- two members of the board and the General Manager out
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A couple things that I helped
from my standpoint is the Legislature, in its wisdom, has
given counties the authority to do water availability, and
that's our only role in reality, and underground water and
everything else is under Headwaters. And I -- and some
Headwaters board members and others have been critical of this
Court for not being, you know, on the right page on water
availability. And I want it real clear; I want to know
exactly what Headwaters' geologist -- this is not -- the
reason I think we're having the geologist to come, Feather
Wilson, as opposed to a joint meeting with the board -- that
may be something we need to do down the road -- is that this
isn't a policy issue; this is a fact issue. We need to know
if -- if we need to tweak our water availability portion of
our subdivision rules. We need to know what the facts are.
We can't act on speculation in long-term policy, so we need to
know exactly what the new modeling that they have done through
that consulting geologist -- what it says.
1 6-07
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
If it comes -- if they're at the point now of saying
that, you know, right around the airport, we know for a fact
there is "X" -- you know, a certain amount of water available,
in other parts of the county there's another amount available;
in west Kerr County, there's this available, we need to know
that information, 'cause we are the ones that are charged with
the water availability portion of the Subdivision Rules. And
that's the reason, is to see exactly where they are. And if
we need to make any changes, we -- you know, maybe we'll look
at that. And I think, you know, down the road, there may be
-- if it's a good time to have another joint meeting, I think
it's always healthy to have joint meetings with Headwaters and
other entities that we interact with, but this is much more of
a fact-finding item, in my opinion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, what you're saying -- I
just want to make it clear. What I'm fixing to see here in a
couple of weeks is that Mr. Wilson is to come here and give
scientific fact or his theories about scientific fact, or he
has reached some conclusion of some sort, I'm assuming.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Based on what I read in the
paper, he's reached some conclusions.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know what it's based on.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what the reason -- I
1-8 07
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
mean, if he's basing it on speculation, that's one thing. If
he's basing it on -- if he has the actual scientific data that
says he knows for certain if he drills a well here, we're
going to get this much water out of that well, that's another
issue. I think it's -- I think we need to know either way. I
think we react either way.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you this. If he
comes in and says he can drill a well here and it's going to
draw down water over here, or whatever he's going to say,
would there be other geologists that may say something
different?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Possibly.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I mean, you know, facts are
facts. I don't know. Do you expect him to come in and give a
complete scientific report on each one of the -- I mean, you
have Middle Trinity, Lower Trinity, Edwards, and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Obviously, I'm very familiar
with what Mr. Wilson's done, being on Region J. I don't know
-- but I don't know exactly where he is in his modeling. The
idea is -- I mean, Headwaters is -- they're certainly here and
can correct me if I'm not accurate here, but they're investing
a lot of money in modeling, which definitely, in my opinion,
needs to be improved. I don't know if he's at the point -- if
he's halfway through or a quarter through, 99 percent through.
I don't know where he is in his modeling efforts. I would
1-8-07
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
z9
suspect he's not done yet, from what -- you know, from my
other conversations with Mr. Wilson, but he's certainly made
some headway.
I've got to be honest; some of these questions I've
never asked him. I don't know if he is modeling the Glen
Rose. I have no idea; I've never asked him that question.
But I think that's something important to know, because there
are a lot of wells -- even though the water may not be real
good quality, there is a huge number of wells out of the Glen
Rose. There's a huge number of wells that are 50 feet deep
along a creek. So, I think that there's a -- you know,
people -- there's a -- I guess a presumption in the community
that when wells go dry, the Trinity's going dry. Well, I
think we need to really look at where the -- where the Trinity
wells are; I mean, what wells we're actually talking about.
There's all kind of aquifers. I think these are the aquifers
that are producing. The other kinds are alluvial type,
shallow creeks and rivers and all that. I think I've
identified them here. I don't know. Like I say, I never
talked to him specifically about if he's even looking at these
other aquifers. But I know Headwaters, I think, has a pretty
good handle on the total number of wells in the county, but
I'm not sure they have a real good handle on where are all
these wells are producing from, because they're not permitted
wells.
i a o~
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1L
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
So, I just really wanted to update a very
specific -- I didn't want to talk about whether we should
require different types of water availability and whether we
should do Chapter 230 or not. I want to focus -- that's more
of a policy issue, in my mind. I mean, I want to know
exactly, scientifically, where they are. And if they think --
because they're -- I mean, some of them have been very vocal
in the paper that we should try to tighten up our water
availability. I think that's -- you know, I want to know if
there's a basis; if it's their feeling or if it's based on
actual work that they now have that we haven't seen.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, it's a possibility that
we may should tighten up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just -- I mean, I really --
I've talked to Feather a great deal, but never in this
context.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or this specific. I talk to him
more on a regional basis.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. My final question, you
said you're going to put it on the agenda for 11 o'clock?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Should we order out lunch
that day, and possibly dinner? That sounds like a long,
drawn-out thing.
1-8-07
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it should be a 1:00 or
1:30 item.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can change it,
I whatever --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to allow the
time, and I think also the other reason to put on it the
agenda, there may be some others in the public that want to
hear it. There's no reason to have 20 different
presentations. If we're going to have one, whoever wants to
come, come. Hopefully it will be in the paper, and it's not
-- you know, but Bill and I discussed quite a bit whether we
wanted a workshop or an agenda item, and my thought was to
keep it an agenda item so our County Attorney will keep us
focused. I don't want to be talking about all different
items. If we have a workshop, then you can talk about
anything. If it's a specific item, as worded here, that's all
we can talk about.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's, I think, helpful
from a -- 'cause this is such a huge topic.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If the Court believes we
should have it after lunch, at 1:30 or 1 o'clock, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1:30.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1:30?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see board members nodding
i a o~
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
their head.
MR. ELLIOTT: I'm John Elliott, Precinct 4,
Headwaters. But I'm thinking, instead of duplicating our
presentations, we ought to do it -- I think -- hasn't
everybody been invited to a workshop presentation at
1 o'clock? Did you get that invite from Mary Ellen? Why
don't we do it -- no, you did not? Did we not --
MR. WILLIAMS: Hasn't gone out yet.
JUDGE TINLEY: She cleared with me the use of one of
the courtrooms. She asked me to clear that, and I have done
so. And -- but she was going to handle the notification.
MR. ELLIOTT: I'm just thinking, instead of
duplicating Feather's presentation or efforts, we ought to
maybe combine the presentations into one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When was that other
presentation?
MR. ELLIOTT: 1 o'clock, I think Mary Ellen was
thinking. Isn't that right, Judge?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On the 22nd?
MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I --
JUDGE TINLEY: I know I cleared the courtroom,
but -- and that sounds like the correct date, because we know
we have a jury reporting on that date. E.B.A.
MR. ELLIOTT: Well, I'll tell Mary Ellen, and she'll
i-s-o~
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
get with you. All I'm trying to do is not duplicate --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good point, John.
We were not aware that that was --
MR. ELLIOTT: Okay. Well, that's --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- that that was perking
from your side of the equation. Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I don't have any problem
with combining meetings, but I'm very focused on what I want
the Court to talk about.
MR. ELLIOTT: And, you know, Commissioner, I'm the
same way. I think we ought to find out --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we do it this way, then
it's posted for us, and this is the way we'd like to invite
the presentation to be.
MR. ELLIOTT: Okay. So, you're suggesting at
11 o'clock, he present it to the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, we changed it to 1:30.
MR. ELLIOTT: That's great. Perfect.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can do -- they can be done
together. We could have our item, and then they could go into
other items, if Mary Ellen has -- whatever her workshop is.
MR. ELLIOTT: That makes sense to me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's more important to me
is that if we do it with an agenda item, it's on the record.
Whatever is said is on the record, and I think that that is
i-a-o~
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
major important.
MR. ELLIOTT: That's fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: She's looking at 1 o'clock? Is that
your recollection?
MR. ELLIOTT: That's my understanding, yeah. I'll
clear it up with her.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we can reconcile that,
we're going to take action here in just about two seconds.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we just set --
MR. ELLIOTT: 1 o'clock?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1 o'clock?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think we should do -- we
can do an agenda item; we can post it. We can do both at the
same time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then we can just follow them
back to back.
MR. ELLIOTT: Sounds like a plan. Thanks.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good, thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the pleasure of the
Court? 1:00 or 1:30?
MR. ELLIOTT: Either works for me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I o'clock is good. I'll
1 8-07
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
move that the agenda item as drafted on 1.5 be posted on
Commissioners Court agenda for January 22nd at 1 p.m.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
j indicated. Any question or discussion on the motion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's go to
I Item 6 --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before we do, Judge, are you
going to convey the sense of that to Mary Ellen, or would you
like me to send her an e-mail indicating exactly what -- how
this is structured?
MR. ELLIOTT: Both.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Both. Will do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the -- one other question is
on -- do we leave it up to you or to Gene to contact Feather,
or should we contact Feather directly?
MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe you should contact him.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Okay. Bill, maybe you
can get hold of him and send him a copy of the item, 'cause
it's -- either one mentions the presentation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Will you give me an e-mail
i-a o~
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
or a phone number or something for him, please?
MR. WILLIAMS: I'll get it to you. ~,
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll be happy to do that.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Are we all through with that
item now? Let's move, then, to Item 6; consider, discuss, and
take appropriate action on correspondence from Milton E.
Taylor regarding easement to his property adjacent to Kerr
County's Flat Rock Lake Park, the new section on the east end.
Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If the Court read the
correspondence from Mr. Taylor, as I did, you might be a
little confused as to what this is all about.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Something to do with
connecting a fence to a gate?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. It has something to
do with a fence and a gate. So, after trying to call him
three or four times and being unsuccessful, I finally got hold
of him, and he and I visited on Saturday morning out at -- on
our property. About four years ago, Commissioner Letz and I
met with Mr. Taylor, and he wanted to cut a hole in our fence
and put a gate in so he could do whatever it is he wanted to
do. And nothing's changed except four years have elapsed, and
he has more junk accumulated on his property. I gave you this
map just to give you an idea, and the sketch that I drew sort
1-B-07
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of gives you a sense of what this is all about. If you'll
note in his letter, the Number 3 item, Last, but not least, on
November 7th I was charged and pled no contest to a Class A
included in the judgment, and I am required to clean up this
area. I need better access to this property..."
That's probably true; he does need better access to
the property. My initial inclination is to say no, he's not
cutting a hole in the county fence. But given the fact that
he has been cited and ordered by the Court to clean up that
property, not only all in and around the creek there, which
affects our property, but I went out and I looked at it one
more time, and if you look at my drawings, the yellow is the
fence -- our fence that's on our property, and he's got all of
this heavy equipment -- buses, trailers, trucks, junk -- on
his property, and he says, "I can't get it out." Why can't
you get it out? You've got a driveway. You got it in. How
come you can't get it out? "Well, because the grade's too
steep and I can't get it out." So, what he'd like to do is
put a gate in our property, which gives him a flatter ingress
and egress to get the stuff out and up that easement.
Now, my inclination is to say no. But, by the same
token, I thought about it, and a temporary easement at his
expense -- cutting the fence, putting the gate in and
1-B-07
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
repairing the fence and taking the gate out -- for six months
And we're getting ready to
open a bridge this year. The new bridge piers have been
poured and the cap's going to be poured in the -- you know,
maybe 30, 60 days, Leonard? Something like that on that
bridge. Maybe 90 days. Anyhow, we hope to have the new
bridge open, so we're bridging the two sections of our
property. I'd like to see it get cleaned up, and I don't know
if this is a way to facilitate getting it cleaned up. I do
know that if we said no, you can't do that, then we probably
would be impeding the cleanup. I don't think there's any
question about that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- I think your -- I
easement. I see no benefit to the taxpayers of the county by
giving Mr. Taylor access through our park to get to his
property. On a temporary basis, I wouldn't -- I don't have a
problem with it; however, I would get an estimate from the
Road and Bridge Department as to what that is going to cost to
put the gate in and paid off, and get the funds from
Mr. Taylor up front.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then proceed, rather than --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be --
i-~-o~
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- leave it up to him.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be my approach,
to get a contractor of our choice to do the fence work and
install the gate. Find out exactly what the cost is to put it
in and create that ingress and egress, and put it back the way
it was, say, six months down the road, and get that money up
front and in a contract the County Attorney can draw up. That
way, maybe we can control it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My only concern is this six
months thing. Why not the time -- the same time frame as the
court order states?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think he has a year to do
I it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sir, months is a lot better.
I like six months. (Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Has any thought been given to trying
to strike some bargain in return for accommodating him so that
he can comply with the T.C.E.Q. requirements?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Such as, Judge?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A larger easement.
JUDGE TINLEY: To get an easement, either from
Riverside or something else off of 27, to give us better
access to that particular tract of land than the pretty poor
access that we have to it right now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, once we get the bridge
i-a-o7
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in, we have -- we have good access.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that bridge is not going to be
for vehicular access, according to my understanding, or it's
not meant to be for vehicular access, but rather foot traffic
and maybe maintenance-type vehicles, things of that nature.
I'm thinking about more -- more permanent vehicular access
that's reasonable. I don't know what the lay of the land is
coming off Riverside. I'm sure there's a way that something
could come off 27. I don't know what it --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, we looked at that
last time we talked with Mr. Taylor. You and I, wasn't it,
Len?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We went walking all over it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Walked all over it, and
Leonard's been out there over and over again. And if you see
how -- how Third Creek comes in there, you know, it comes in
at a real bend. Comes across Highway 27 and it bends severely
to the -- you know, makes a 45-degree angle and hooks around,
and -- and we only have access across the creek after it
straightens out. Which is good, 'cause that's where we're
putting the bridge, but that's a pretty steep cliff in there
where that creek comes around and bends around on his
property. And then you've got -- at Riverside and Highway 27,
I know what you're talking about, in that -- be lovely if we
had that, but we don't have that, because it needs to be
1 8-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
41
cleaned up as well on both sides of Riverside Drive. So, I
don't know where that would be, Judge. We looked at it four
years ago.
JUDGE TINLEY: It occurs to me that if you're going
to be in a position to try and strike a bargain with that
landowner to get a different and better route of access to
that Flat Rock Park piece of property, that now is the very,
very best time that you're going to have to do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't disagree with that
at all. Because I would hope someday we could abandon that
easement on top that comes down from the Swap Shop. That's
terrible. It's not good for public ingress and egress to that
piece of property, which is a gorgeous piece of property. I
would hope that someday we could abandon that. We can take
another look at it. I'll be happy to do that, take another
look at it and see whether there is anything else. But,
i Leonard, while we're here on this topic, that bridge that's
going to go in will take vehicular traffic, will it not?
MR. ODOM: It will.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. ODOM: Just like the Guadalupe River crossing at '~~
Hermann Sons.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think -- you can't take
-- I think what it is, there was a weight limit.
MR. ODOM: 17,000, but that was arbitrarily put. I
i-a-o~
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
mean, before it was --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. ODOM: You know. I mean, could take a load of
80,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, if you were to have a -- some
sort of event or fair on that piece of property, with a large
portion of that to be utilized for parking, it'd really be
better if you had another route of access, would it not? Than
just that bridge and that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Come up, Leonard, so we can
talk to you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Part of the -- well --
MR. ODOM: Now, part of crossing the river, again,
is cost analysis, and we've got this in pretty cheap; 21,000
for the piers and about 13, so 34 -- 35,000 is what it's going
to cost us plus putting that across. So, if I -- I don't know
where the route would be. We'll take a look at it. However,
I believe that it would probably be more cost effective to
have some traffic control. You're going to go -- if you
parked on the other side, then it's sort of like that same
analysis of how do you get them out of Houston? You've got
to -- for another read-up. You've got to have better
control -- Houston does -- to get them out. So I think you
could do the same thing. If they're on this side, then
1-6-07
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
I8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there's no traffic going in; it's all coming out.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. ODOM: And the same thing there; you're not
letting them come out, and you've got this huge area over
there to park people. I just don't know what's -- you know,
hold, just like we have at Hermann Sons.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think in -- in the context
you're talking about, Judge, I think once we get the bridge
in, then I think we're going to have to improve our own
driveway off of Riverside Drive down to that bridge, 'cause
that's not good where it is.
MR. ODOM: Where it's at, it's going to be
relocated. Exactly where it's at now, it's going to change
because of the angle that we've got. And we have an idea
where it's going to come out at, so there will be some -- a
little bit of change there, or you will only have the entrance
down at the other side. That's up to y'all. I just need a
little lead there, but we just need to get end caps poured; I
don't have those done yet.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, my whole point is, there's not
going to be a better time to strike a bargain with this
landowner than right now. And even if we don't utilize a
particular right of access that we manage to obtain, if we're
going to get one, now's the time to get it, something
i-e-o~
44
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: Than what you got.
JUDGE TINLEY: And -- and if there's even the
remotest of possibilities down the road, years, that it would
be beneficial for us to have another access, let's try and get
it in the equation now, because now's the time that we --
we've got the ability to talk to this landowner.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We -- Bill and I talked to him
about getting an additional access, and he was not at all
receptive before. That's part of -- on that side of it, part
of the problem is where he built his house. I mean, any road
-- you can't, I think, cost-effectively cross Third Creek
again; that doesn't make sense, so you got to come off of 27,
really.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And not a very big spot there.
It's a pretty long -- it's a lot further from 27 to our park
than you think. I mean, I walked through -- I think Len and I
walked through it. I think Bill was there, too. It is --
it's a swampy, rough mess in there. But I hear what the Judge
says; there may be opportunities for us to -- you know, I
don't think Milton's going to give up an easement for nothing.
I don't know how much it's going to cost him to clean up, but
we may be able to help him in his cleanup if he gives us the
easement. And I think that is a -- it's -- you know, it's
i a-oi
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
worth pursuing. You know, if we say we'll take care of the
cleanup -- or I see the County Attorney getting --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't even want to look at
the County Attorney after you just said that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a question.
Commissioner Oehler was a member of this Court when the --
when that land was purchased?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Purchased.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I was just wondering if
there were any thoughts -- original thoughts when you
purchased it. Were you thinking about some kind of entrance
into that piece of property?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We were hoping sometime in the
future to gain some wider access from -- from Milton.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Here we are.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I have met with Milton
numerous times in past years and was not able to get any more
right-of-way, but this may be a good opportunity to do some --
some trading.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where did you have in mind
for the additional right-of-way, Commissioner? On that --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Like you said, and that
property down by his house and crossing the creek again is
cost prohibitive, I think. I think we need to have it on the
west -- on the east side where the existing easement is now,
i-a-o~
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
just have a wider one.
MR. ODOM: See, we only have 20 foot.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know we don't have but 20
foot. We need to have 100.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He built a new house right --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's another structure in
I there now.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Over the -- on the east side?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's right -- where our gate
goes in -- where the easement goes in, he's right at that --
it's 20 feet from our gate.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oh, no.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Overlooking the park.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That may have been
intentional, too.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's another one right
there, up there at the top as you come in off the highway.
There's a structure right as you come in off the highway. You
come in the road like you're going up to Swap Shop, and right
as you would turn right to go on that -- on our easement to go
down, there's another structure there. That's -- it's a
double-wide that has part of his church.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there's a house he built,
right?
JUDGE TINLEY: Big two-story house.
i-a-o~
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's where he lives.
That's his dwelling.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That house is right -- that
house wasn't there when we bought the property?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, it was not.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But there's now another one,
is what I'm trying to tell you. There's another structure
even -- right -- almost right across from the Swap Shop. As
you come up that road going to Swap Shop and you turn right to
go into our park, there's the structure right there. Then
down a little bit is his house. If you look at my little
drawing, you'll see it. I saw a little -- right up at the
top, there's a new structure right there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before his house.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the Judge is very
accurate; it's a good time to visit with him again, see if
there's anything we can do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we can see where it leads.
I mean, the -- his new house that he lives in is really messed
up. The plan I think that the Court had originally -- I mean,
it's like, you know --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The position of it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The position of it is just --
1-8-ui
48
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it's right where we would need access. But there's -- you
know, he may be -- the other side of it, to his -- it would
probably benefit him if there was access into the middle of
that property.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if you remember -- if
you recall, when we visited with him, he's got two posts and a
gate, which is probably 10 or 12 feet back from our fence,
which is what he wanted to connect. Well, he says now that
will be better served if he could connect it, put a gate in
at -- at a lower elevation so that he can pull all that heavy
stuff out on the flat and then go up that easement, as opposed
to going up his driveway. His driveway's kind of like that.
So if the Court gives -- wants to give me authority to see
what we can do and work out the details of something, I'll do
that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I would say that it's not our
responsibility to help Mr. Taylor get his junk off of his
property, being that there has been a court order issued
against him to do so.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think that, you know, if he
wants us to help him, he has to be willing to give something
that we need in order for us to make it easier for him.
JUDGE TINLEY: There you go.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Somebody said it.
i-e-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
49
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I say no, Mr. Taylor. You
have not cooperated with the County in any form or fashion.
You want us to do for you, and you're not willing to
cooperate. No, absolutely not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm with Bruce. Y'all notice
that the Commissioners Court has two pulling tackles now?
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The only question I have in
mind is, if we're going to try to negotiate a quid pro quo on
a temporary basis -- not a permanent easement, temporary --
where do we think that improved easement would be?
MR. ODOM: Off 27.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Off 27, coming in.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right where the driveway goes
up, trying to get it more straightened out there.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'd say to take it from where
the easement is now down to where you come off of 27 to go
straight. Going straight would take everything. Get -- some
way or another, get that piece of land, 'cause that -- and if
you have to give a little to go around his house, that would
be the adequate --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- and the right way to do it
for the County for the future.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. So, you would turn off 27
i-s-o~
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
and go straight through the park, as opposed --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Plus that gets us away --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Instead of going up and turning,
kind of, you go -- you have to go up at a little bit of an
angle.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That will keep you far enough
I away from the creek to have decent access on high ground that
will probably be out of the floodplain.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If he wants to give a 60-foot
easement for us to help him, or maybe we even make some kind
of agreement with him to do something, but I -- as far as
helping him, at this point, no.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll see what -- we'll see
what we can do, see where it takes us.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on that particular
agenda item?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we beat that dog tc
death.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's straight up 10 o'clock now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What a leader.
JUDGE TINLEY: And so at this time, I will recess
the Commissioners Court meeting, and I will convene a public
hearing concerning the revision of plat for Lots 5 and 6 in
Cypress Springs, Phase I, as set forth in Volume 7, Page 12 of
i-e o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
51
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 10 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open
court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
for Lots 5 and 6 of Cypress Springs, Phase I, as set forth in
Volume 7, Page 12 of the Plat Records of Kerr County, and
located in Precinct 4?
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing no one coming forward, I will
close the public hearing, and I will reconvene the
Commissioners Court meeting and call Item 8.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10 a.m., and the
regular Commissioners Court meeting was reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action for -- concerning the revision of plat for
Lots 5 and 6 in Cypress Springs Estates, Phase I, as set forth
in Volume 7, Page 12 of the Plat Records, and located in
Precinct 4. Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This revision is being done
under the alternate plat process and will combine two lots,
Lots 5 and 6, making one lot, 5R, 4.69 acres. At this time,
we ask that you approve this revision on the plat as
presented, and authorize the Judge to sign same.
i-a-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2L
23
24
25
52
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item. Any question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One question -- one question,
Mr. Odom.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you responsible for this
vicinity map?
MR. ODOM: Am I responsible? I allowed it to be
done, but --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You ought to be ashamed of
yourself. You can't read that thing at all.
MR. ODOM: Mr. Voelkel?
MR. LEE VOELKEL: I'm responsible for that, yes,
sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, that's okay then. That
makes it okay.
MR. ODOM: Makes it okay?
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Let me look at that again.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't --
MR. LEE VOELKEL: I think I agree with you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments? All
in favor of that motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
i-a-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
53
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion carried. Let us do Item
17; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to approve
the final plat of Lasso Ranch located in Precinct 3.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Let me find it here. Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pretty straightforward.
MR. ODOM: Yes. They've given their letter of
credit. They're going to do the final here. They have paid
the bill for Wayne. There will still be some, but we have
that letter of credit, so I don't have a problem with that.
They still have some work still to be done; that is the base
on top, as well as sealcoat, and I believe that's waiting on
utilities. But as it's platted right here, I ask the Court to
accept it as -- as platted for a final.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A quick question. I know that
the -- the B.F.E. was an issue on this one, an issue from the
standpoint as to how it should be done, and we kind of looked
at establishing the B.F.E.
MR. ODOM: Establishing the B.F.E. yes.
i s o~
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And as I understand it from
talking with Don Voelkel and -- and the fact that you got it
here today, seems like it worked out pretty well? Is that
accurate, that it's kind of looking at the law and complying
with the law, that it was a -- and with the size of these
lots, it worked out, of you working with the surveyor,
basically, to determine where the B.F.E, should be?
MR. ODOM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kind of an informal --
MR. ODOM: Informal type deal when they have this.
My understanding is -- is that when we talked to FEMA about
that, that they did not have a typical -- not a fixed answer,
yes or no, other than an ambiguous answer. We could -- they
could leave it undone, or you could do it. We had to be
consistent in what we were doing. So, I don't have a specific
answer, other than that we put -- putting this note on here
that says that they come to the Floodplain Administrator,
whoever that may be, whether it's me or whomever, to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seems like a good resolution to
me as to -- rather than going to the expense of doing a
tremendous amount of work, going off of the maps that are
existing and working with the surveyor and just establishing
the B.F.E.
MR. ODOM: When it's an AE, a floodway, then that's
a given. I mean, it shouldn't be a -- there's not a question.
i-e-o~
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
AE is there, and it could be interpolated by a surveyor or an
engineer. But when it's an A, an unstudied area, I don't have
a problem going by and taking a look at it, coming up with a
base flood elevation. Unless the County Surveyor has any
comments.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: I'm sorry, I wasn't paying
attention.
MR. ODOM: I didn't think so.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Are you on floodplain?
MR. ODOM: Yeah. That's all right.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: No comment.
MR. ODOM: I think the County Surveyor ought to be
the Floodplain Administrator, myself.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For free, right?
MR. ODOM: For free. That's what I'm doing it for.
JUDGE TINLEY: And turn over all fees generated in
that capacity to the County, of course?
MR. ODOM: Sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: And to turn over all fees generated
in that capacity to the County?
MR. ODOM: That is -- that is correct. All the big
money that we make on it. I don't have a problem with the
plat as it is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Looks good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other questions?
1-8-0~
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Comments?
THE CLERK: We have a motion and a second.
JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Looks like
we're running just a few minutes ahead, by golly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Take a break. We have a 10:10.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we're a couple minutes off. I
don't see anything else that we've got that we can thrash
around on that's not --
MR. ODOM: If we come back at 10:30, then we could
go right through everything. Take a break and --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah, why don't we just go
ahead and take a 15-minute recess now, and we'll come back and
plow through these things.
(Recess taken from 10:07 a.m. to 10:24 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if we
might. We were in recess for a mid-morning break. At this
time, I will recess the Commissioners Court meeting and
convene a public hearing concerning the revision of plat for
Lots 16 and 17, Bear Creek Ranch Estates, as set forth in
i-fl-~~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
57
Volume 3, Page 75 of the Plat Records, and located in Precinct
1.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 10:25 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open
court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public
that wishes to be heard concerning the revision of plat for
Lots 16 and 17 in Bear Creek Ranch Estates, as set forth in
Volume 3, Page 75 of the Plat Records?
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing no one come forward, I will
close the public hearing, and I will reconvene the
Commissioners Court meeting.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:26 a.m.,
and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: And I will call item 10; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action for revision of plat for
Lots 16 and 17 of Bear Creek Ranch Estates, as set forth in
Volume 3, Page 75, Plat Records, and located in Precinct 1.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. We have -- the plat, as far as
I can tell, is acceptable. There was one question that we had
about water, but Mr. Mark Andrews, the attorney at law, drew
this up. It has been drawn up, as you see in the attached
information. And we were taking -- dividing two lots into
1-6-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
58
three, making Lots 16A, 16B and 16C. Each lot is over
3 acres, and there's a shared well agreement with a water
system that originates on Lot 15, also owned by a family
member. The attorney drew this up, and it says that --
basically, he explained why it is not signed at this point,
but it would be signed after the division of the property. He
says, "I am holding the water well agreement and will get it
executed and recorded immediately upon the revised plat being
approved." So, I don't have any problems, and I ask the Court
to approve this revision of plat.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My only question is this
block on the plat here that says, "Kerr County not responsible
for road maintenance." Is that a --
MR. ODOM: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that a fact? I just want
to make it clear to the property owners.
MR. ODOM: Cub Lane is not maintained by the County.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: That's a very interesting point,
too, Commissioner, because it is a public right-of-way. It's
just a road that's not maintained by the County.
MR. ODOM: By the County. It can be a public access
or it can be private, or it -- either maintained or not
maintained, but we do not maintain it. It does have public
access, 'cause it doesn't have a gate up front.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And they're choosing to plat it,
1-R-07
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
just from the standpoint of getting it platted? I mean, even
though it's not required to be?
MR. ODOM: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not required to be platted
as a family division. I mean, they're just choosing to --
MR. ODOM: It would not be under 1.03; however,
they're doing that because it is a smart thing to do in case
one member would -- would do this, we wanted it platted, and
they chose to do so.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, that's good. It was just
-- just going above and beyond.
MR. ODOM: Right, it was up and beyond.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: These people are some of the
nicest people that I've worked with in a long time, that have
-- you know, we showed them the rules and what you can do,
what you can't do, and they met everything, and then gone
above and beyond the call of duty, so I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second -- third.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item. Any question or discussion on the motion?
All in favor of that motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
i-a-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
60
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. I will recess
the Commissioners Court meeting, and I will convene a public
hearing concerning the revision of plat for Lots 124B and 131A
of Falling Water, as shown in the plat of Volume 7, Page 52,
Plat Records, and located in Precinct 3.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 10:30 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open
court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public
that wishes to be herds concerning the revision of the plat
for Lots 124B and 131A of Falling Water, as set forth in the
i plat in Volume 7, Page 52, Plat Records, and located in
Commissioners Precinct 3?
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing no one coming forward, I will
close the public hearing and reconvene the Commissioners Court
meeting.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:30 a.m.,
and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: And call Item 12, that being to
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for the
revision of plat for Lots 124B and 131A of Falling Waters,
located in Precinct 3. Mr. Odom?
1 8 07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
61
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. The owner is combining two
lots into one under the alternate plat process. This meets
all the requirements of our subdivision rules. At this time,
I ask you to approve the revision of plat as presented, and
authorize the Judge to sign the same.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item. Any question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm trying to figure out how
the --
MR. DON VOELKEL: Is now a good time to talk? We've
had some discussion with Miguel about these type of plats
where we're combining lots, and the routing slip didn't get
signed by Miguel because he had a difference of opinion about
this type of lot. I think when Bruce was on the commission
before -- and I think y'all's opinion in the past has been we
want to try to encourage people to do this, to make fewer
septics and fewer lots, larger lots out of smaller lots. So
Miguel, when he first got the preliminary plat, he sent it
back to me as insufficient because I didn't have a topographic
survey, I didn't have a soil survey, I didn't have drainage
reports and all these things. And I called him and I said, "I
have a problem, because these are not -- you know, this is
combining lots. I don't think these are required." And he
z-e-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
62
referenced the -- in the Texas Administrative Code, the
I went to it, and in that chapter it specifically
already developed. It's already been subdivided. I don't
think that applies, so I don't think..." And he goes, "Well,
y'all just go ahead and make them do it," because he didn't
have it in his file. And I -- I told him I didn't see that --
that the owner of those lots should have to pay several
thousand dollars to get a topographic survey, drainage study
and all that stuff. So -- and so we had a difference of
opinion. That's why he didn't sign the routing slip, and he
hasn't signed the final plat.
So, I called T.C.E.Q. He had said he had talked to
T.C.E.Q. and they told him, yeah, you have to have it. I
talked to a guy named Ren Berra who is in the same office; the
guy that he had talked to was out of the office. And
initially, the man told me, "Oh, you have to do that. I've
talked to Miguel -- or I've talked to the guy that talked to
Miguel, and this is all required." And I told him, "Find it
in the law, and we'll start doing it, but I didn't find it."
And he goes, "I'll look it up." He called me back about an
hour later and said -- this was Friday. And he said, "At the
1-8-0~
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
end of the day, if he signs it or doesn't sign it, later on in
So, what I wanted to find out from y'all is, in the
future when we do these, are we going to allow people to get
them done without having to do a topographic survey and things
like that? And you may want to talk to Miguel and let him
give you his input. That's kind of where I'm coming from.
I'm not trying to circumvent anything; I've never tried to
circumvent anything. I just don't think that it's something
that -- that is needed when you're combining lots, and I don't
think the law says you have to. I even went to Black's Law --
I've done a lot of research. The Black's Law Dictionary even
that this type of plat -- and I don't think we're hurting the
public by combining these and making them bigger, having fewer
septics. And Miguel -- he may give you a different slant, but
I want y'all to be able to, while we're on this issue, come up
with some kind of a policy or something, 'cause it's not in
the subdivision regulations. And if you look at the
subdivision regulations, the developer is defined as someone
dividing and subdividing land, so I don't think this applies
to that specific instance. So, you may want to have Miguel go
over that also.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We probably need to address
i-s-o~
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
64
it outside this meeting, though.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, if we're going to talk about a
general policy issue, that may be true. If we're -- if that
particular issue is related to this particular --
MR. ODOM: Plat.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- plan, of course, it is relevant
here. But on the broader scope of things, it's probably a
policy issue that we need to address. But as to this
particular agenda item --
MR. ARREOLA: I have something as to this particular
I item.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, mm-hmm.
MR. ARREOLA: Like Mr. Voelkel said, we did contact
T.C.E.Q. to make sure we were doing what the state law
requires, and all have been concurring to that approach over
the phone. I just got an e-mail this morning. I would like
to read at least the first three items that he says here, and
I'll give you a copy of the whole e-mail. He says -- and it's
from Ren Berra, the one who he spoke on Friday. It says,
"Miguel, I wish to reaffirm staff's support of your proper and
correct decision for the request of planning materials
pursuant to the 30 TAC" -- that's the Texas Administrative
Code -- "285.4(c)" -- that's what the law is; that's where the
requirement comes from -- "for an existing subdivision replat
agenda item scheduled for hearing on January 8, 2007, before
1-8 07
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the Kerr County Commissioners Court. Based on discussions
Engineering, as presenter of replat, concerning the details of
the subject agenda item, I offer the following points which
led to this decision:"
tracts, outer boundary not altered, was deemed to be a
significant enough alteration of the original approved
subdivision plat and development plan that it required public
notice, possible public input, and Commissioners Court
decision. This decision for placing it before the
Commissioners Court could or should have come from County
Engineer, Surveyor, or Attorney."
Number two. "Simply stated, a subdivision plat,
even a replat, necessitating Commissioners Court approval,
triggers a 285.4(c) request and review. Staff is very
disappointed and -- and concerned with the Commissioners'
decision not to seek a proper and rule-mandated recommendation
from its OSSF permitting authority."
Number three. "AS the Designated Representative of
Kerr County, it is both your duty and responsibility, cited in
285.62(4), to conduct subdivision reviews for their compliance
with T.C.E.Q. OSSF rules."
And it goes on, but I'll give you a copy of this.
i-a-o~
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
My position is, that's what the rules require. T.C.E.Q. tell
me that that's what the rules require. Everybody's doing it.
Every single surveyor in the county's doing it. Everybody
gets it. I got just five today that all comply, and I don't
see why --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Five revisions?
MR. ARREOLA: Excuse me?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Five of the same --
MR. ARREOLA: No, not the same scenario.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, the problem I have with
this, Miguel, is that there are -- currently, the County has
approved two septics on this property, on the 6-acre. Now
we're going to approve one septic. If you could have two, you
can certainly have one. And I don't -- and the County's
policy has been -- as long as I've been a Commissioner, is to
encourage people to do just this. We've many times taken two
1-acre lots or three 1-acre lots and made two acre-and-a-half
lots, even though that's below our minimum requirements, just
from the standpoint it's still better than where we were.
MR. ARREOLA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Trying to -- if we strictly
enforce that statute, we might as well just forget it. People
are just not going to do it. Why would someone spend $2,000
just to clean up their property for no reason? I mean, they
own multiple tracts; it doesn't affect where they build their
i-a-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
67
home. It doesn't affect anything other than making the
subdivision plat, you know, a little bit more clean from their
standpoint -- from a tax standpoint, really.
MR. DON VOELKEL: And one thing Ren told me when I
was on the phone with him Friday, he said at the end of the
day, if this doesn't get done at the time of the plat, when
these people come back in to Miguel to get a permit, they --
they're subject to the same requirements, and at that time
they may have to do any or all of these things. And I told
him I didn't know that that was the case, and as long as
they're doing everybody the same way, whatever he's requiring
anybody else for a permit should be done with these. But I'm
like Commissioner Letz; that, you know, if we're taking two
septics and making one out of it, I don't see how we're, you
know, doing any detriment to the public by not doing what --
what that -- and I -- I'm still of the opinion that -- I
looked at state law. I don't think it's required. But
Mr. Berra, he -- he couldn't tell me where it was required,
but he didn't -- he kind of just left that alone.
But I -- if y'all want to get together sometime and
at, same stuff they have, and I don't see that it applies.
That's where I'm coming from. I'm not trying -- and if this
stuff gets done when they go to permit it, we're not losing
i-e-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
68
any ground, I don't think, personally. But that's -- that's
why he had hasn't signed this plat yet, and that's kind of
where we got to a stalemate before.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: From my perspective, this is
not a subdivision. It's already an approved subdivision back
when it was done originally.
MR. ARREOLA: Correct.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We haven't altered anything
except taking out a lot line and combining two lots, so why go
back and do all this stuff? It's not a subdivision. It is
the reverse of a subdivision. I think it's ludicrous to
demand that people do these extra things whenever they've done
their job to make it bigger and better, not where they're
making it smaller and harder to do. I can understand a
division. This is the reverse of a division, in my opinion.
MR. ARREOLA: Okay.
I
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's a combining.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What I think you need to do
is give that to the County Attorney and let him give us an
opinion. But I've got a question. Did it really say in there
that their staff was disappointed in this Commissioners Court?
MR. ARREOLA: I got a copy of the memo.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is unacceptable language
from a state agency.
1-8-0~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
69
MR. ARREOLA: Well, I don't know if they were
completely informed of what -- what was really going on.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you, Miguel. Miguel,
you're just -- you're in the middle on this.
MR. ARREOLA: Yeah. Well, I'm trying to do my job,
that's all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: "Staff is very disappointed and
concerned with Commissioners' decision..."
JUDGE TINLEY: Should we get them to define "staff,"
Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: We hear that out of other agencies, I
think.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We do.
JUDGE TINLEY: There seems to be some anonymity with
the word "staff."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That it's a hide-all --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to have a
workshop on this topic with the County Attorney having some
time to do some research into it, and invite T.C.E.Q. down
here as well, and have them --
MR. ARREOLA: Sure.
1-B-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
70
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But in this particular instance,
I mean, I -- you know, I'm in favor of going forward and
approving this, with -- even though Miguel hasn't and there
may be a question. But to me, it makes no sense -- we've done
everything we can to make doing this as easy as possible,
'cause it benefits the public. And to try to go the other
direction, to me, is not where we should be going.
MR. ARREOLA: Just one comment. I agree with you,
and it is positive to get larger tracts. It helps everybody.
This needs to be done. My point of view, it's better to do it
while at this stage instead of putting the new buyer into
this, when it's already approved and done and there's no way
back. We can see a potential problem now and detect if it's
going to be a problem for a septic in there, which it might
not be, 'cause it's a large tract and it's just a matter of
submitting the information to doublecheck, make sure it's
good, and everybody's good from now on. The other way,
someone is going to buy it not knowing what they're getting,
and it's already approved; we're going to have to work with
it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I don't think that in this
this lot. I think they're just doing it 'cause they're
probably going to build. I don't think there's a house on
this yet, is there?
i-a-o~
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. DON VOELKEL: No. This one owner, Mr.
where Miguel and I -- this is the biggest gap between our
opinion. His opinion is, we've got to know if there's a
problem. Well, like I said a while ago, you already approved
it for two lots, two houses, two septics. How can putting one
on there make any problem for anybody? I just don't see that.
And that's why I'm talking with Bruce. It just doesn't seem
prudent to make them spend a couple thousand dollars to
combine lots and take one lot line. And in this man's letter,
I'm real disappointed with T.C.E.Q., I'd like to go on record,
'cause when I talked with him Friday and I specifically told
him I'm going to go to Commissioners Court Monday, and I've
reviewed this and looked at the law enough -- I told him,
"I've done a lot of research, and I don't find it in the law
that it requires it." And he told me -- he told me -- called
me back, and he says, at the end of the day -- when he and I
talked 4:30 on Friday afternoon, he said he was of the opinion
that -- that if we let them do it about without doing it now,
then eventually, when they get a permit, it would be done.
So, he led me to believe Friday afternoon that he was going to
say, yeah, it ought to be signed and ought to be done, and not
have to do all those things, 'cause eventually they'll get the
permit process going and everything will be fine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Based on the location, I mean, I
1-8-07
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
think -- I have no problem with Miguel taking -- I think you
should look at it. This is going to be a difficult site no
matter if it's 10 acres, 1 acre, whatever, to put a septic on
top of a hill in solid rock. But even with that, one is
certainly going to be better than two in that location.
MR. ARREOLA: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And they can do something; they
can build a septic system. It may be an expensive septic
system.
MR. DON VOELKEL: May be an alternative engineered
system.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It will probably be an aerobic
system. That's what they tend to use on those hills. I just
think that the -- you can look at this map and know that they
have problems, and I have no problem with the plat note even
saying that this is a difficult site for septic. But I --
trying to do a bunch of work at this point, you know, I think
it's better served the public if they go through the -- when
they get an actual plan, their septic's going to vary a lot,
whether they have a -- you know, a minimum house for Falling
Water is about 1,700 square feet, versus 6,000 square feet.
And I think -- and so a bunch of work now really doesn't do a
whole lot, other than cost that money. They're going to have
to go through and spend it anyway whenever they build a
septic. So --
i-a-o~
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with everything
that's been said here. However, because of the -- I mean, I
want to know what the County Attorney has to say about it, so
I withdraw my second. If somebody else wants to second it, go
on; that's fine. I'm not going to.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What was the motion? I'll
I second it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If it meets the rules, I'll
second it, and it evidently does.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it meets the rules, the
way you and I interpret the rules.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It doesn't meet them the way
some others may interpret the rules.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like the County Attorney
to give us a little reading on it.
THE CLERK: We have a motion and second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or comments on
the motion as pending, to approve the -- the revision of plat
for Lots 124B and 131A, Falling Water?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Quick question. Does the County
Attorney have an opinion, or does he need to do more research?
MR. EMERSON: I mean, I haven't researched it, so --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. All in favor of the motion,
1-8-07
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
signify by --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One more question before we
vote.
JUDGE TINLEY: Hmm?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a time reason to vote
on this today? Is it a problem for the Blackwoods to --
MR. DON VOELKEL: I don't know that they necessarily
have to have it done today. If y'all want to look at this and
come back next time or something, that's fine with me, if you
want to just table it. I mean, I -- they're anxious to get it
done, because they're in the process of getting their house
plans and stuff going. They'd like to -- they were
anticipating getting it done today.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a problem with
tabling it, but I have every full intention to support doing
it. It's -- I mean, I -- you can convey that to them. But I
want that input, because I think we can waive that requirement
if we so choose.
JUDGE TINLEY: Who made the motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Me.
JUDGE TINLEY: You made it. Do you want to withdraw
your motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll withdraw it and table it --
and request we table it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Me also.
i-e o~
~s
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I
JUDGE TINLEY: Bring that back? Okay. I will now
recess the Commissioners Court meeting, and I will convene a
public hearing concerning a revision of plat for Lot 1 of
Heartland Acres, as set forth in Volume 7, Page 322 of the
Plat Records, and located in Precinct 2.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 10:46 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open
court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public
that wishes to be heard concerning the revision of plat for
Lot 1 of Heartland Acres, as set forth in Volume 7, Page 322
of the Plat Records, and located in Commissioners Precinct 2?
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing no one seeking recognition or
otherwise coming forward, I will close the public hearing
concerning the revision of plat for Lot 1 of Heartland Acres.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:46 a.m.,
and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: And I will reconvene the
Commissioners Court meeting, and we will take up Item 14, that
being to consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for
the revision of a plat for Lot 1 of Heartland Acres, as set
forth in Volume 7, Page 322 of the Plat Records of Kerr
County, and located in Commissioners Precinct 2. Mr. Odom?
i-a-o~
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Wiedenfeld Water Works owns
the well tract between 14 and 15 on Windwood Oaks and has
assured the owner that he will furnish the Lot lA with water.
Therefore, this will meet the 3-acre average required by Kerr
County Subdivision Rules, and we ask that you approve the
revision of this plat.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Judge, may I make a comment as we
move -- before we move on?
JUDGE TINLEY: Surely.
~ MR. LEE VOELKEL: As you will see on this plat, it
adjoins the state highway, and there is a requirement to get
the approval of TexDOT. All of this information, as far as
the preliminary plat and the data with it, has been delivered
to TexDOT a week or so ago. Mike Coward, the man that signs
the plat, has not been available for his signature. I was
told that he would be back today, and that we could get that.
But before you approve that, I just wanted you to know, as of
this time this morning, I do not have the TexDOT signature on
the plat. I would ask if we could do it contingent upon his
signature, and we'd come back to you for your final signature
when all the other signatures are in place.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval, conditioned
on the TexDOT approval for the highway.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
i-a-o~
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second to
approve the revision of plat, conditioned on TexDOT's approval
as requested by Mr. Voelkel. Any question or discussion on
the motion? All in favor of that motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. At this time,
I will recess the Commissioners Court meeting, and I will
convene and open a public hearing concerning the revision of a
plat for Lots 12, 13A, and 13B in Riverside Park, as set forth
in Volume 1, Page 70, Plat Records, and Volume 7, Page 251,
Plat Records, and located in Commissioners Precinct 4.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 10:50 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open
court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public
that wishes to be heard concerning the revision of a plat for
Lots 12, 13A, and 13B in Riverside Park, as set forth in
volume 1, page 70, of the plat records and Volume 7, Page 251
of the Plat Records, and located in Commissioners Precinct
Number 4?
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing no one seeking to be
1-B-07
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
recognized or otherwise coming forward, I will close the
public hearing concerning the revision of a plat for Lots 12,
13A, and 13B in Riverside Park, and I will reconvene the
Commissioners Court meeting.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:50 a.m.,
and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: And go to Item 16, which is to
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for the
revision of Lots 12, 13A, and 13B of Riverside Park, located
in Commissioner's Precinct 4. Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This has been before the Court
as Lots 13A and 13B. Environmental Health had some issues
with the septic, so no action was taken there. The revision
now includes Lot 12, and we believe O.S.S.F. issues as well as
Kerr County Subdivision Rules have been met. We had called,
and Miguel was gone.
MR. ARREOLA: Yeah, it's good.
MR. ODOM: It is good? That was the impression we
got from Tish. At this time, we ask that you accept this
revision as platted and authorize the Judge to sign the same.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item as indicated. Any further question or
1 8 07
79
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Well, here
we are, short again on our public hearings, aren't we?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about executive session
items? Well, we can just wait.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there a necessity that we go into
executive session --
MS. BOLIN: I wouldn't think so.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- necessarily?
MS. BOLIN: That was suggested.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, let's see if we can handle them
outside of executive session.
MS. BOLIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's -- I'm going to take Item 19
first. Let's go to Item 19; consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action to bring in a new hire at 13 -- Grade 13,
Step 2, due to six years prior experience, using budgeted
funds from prior employee.
MS. BOLIN: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Bolin?
1-8-07
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. BOLIN: I -- when I went into office this time,
I chose to let one of my problem children go, and there is a
woman who came in from Bandera County with six years
experience. I would like to take my employee's salary and
split it, actually bring her in at a 13-2 because of the
experience. And that's it on that one.
JUDGE TINLEY: The employee that you elected not to
redeputize was what grade and step?
MS. BOLIN: 13-3.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, you're proposing to bring
this one in at one step lower?
MS. BOLIN: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And the upgrade from a 13-1 is
because of the six years prior experience?
MS. BOLIN: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Dealing with the same things that
this employee would be dealing with --
MS. BOLIN: Exactly.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- in your office?
MS. BOLIN: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The -- my question is, I
mean, I can't -- I can't tell how much money we're talking
about that you'll take from the former employee's salary. And
adding here, because you're going to do it -- you're going to
1-8-U7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
81
do this exact same thing on this other item.
MS. BOLIN: Actually, what I'm going to do is, she
was a 13-3, and I'll bring in the new one at a 13-2 and use
the other one to take one up -- use the other step to give one
a merit increase.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 13-2. Well, my question
is -- I don't want to commingle these things, but --
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me go ahead and call Item 18.
That might be well, and we can --
MS. BOLIN: Good idea.
i JUDGE TINLEY: -- discuss freely between the two.
Item 19, which I'm calling now, is to consider, discuss, and
I take appropriate action to allow a merit or step increase
ICI using budgeted funds from prior employee.
MS. BOLIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is there enough money to --
from the old employee's salary to cover these two items?
MS. BOLIN: I spoke to Ms. Hyde, and she said yes,
that there shouldn't be a problem.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is the employee under Item 18
also a 13?
MS. BOLIN: He's a 13-3, yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, that person will be a 13-4
and this one will be a 13-2?
', MS. BOLIN: Right. He's been here five years. He
1-8-07
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
got his five-year pin at the meeting, and he has just gone up
step-by-step. And I -- I feel like because he does do the
supervisor's position when she's not here, that he really
needs to do better than what he's doing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, have you had an
opportunity to take a look at this to see that the salaries
will fit?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, if they're both -- if
they're all 13's, you should be able to move steps around, as
long as you're --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
I COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Isn't each step 2 and a half
percent? It shouldn't make any difference budget-wise or
money -- dollar-wise.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It won't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You had two 13 --
MS. BOLIN: 13-3's.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two 13-3's, and it's now a 13-2
and a 13-4.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, it's basically the same.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Same thing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Same dollar amount.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Same dollar amount.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I have no problem with that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Then I don't either. But the
i-s-o~
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
only question I had, then -- and I'm assuming that Ms. Hyde
said that the 13-4's and the -- the 13-2's and 13-4's still
fit --
MS. BOLIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- in the pay grade -- step
and grade system?
MS. BOLIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only long-term thing I do
see is that a year from now, there's an automatic longevity
increase, so that one does get ticked up. So, there is a -- a
slight long-term effect when you start someone above a 13-1.
A year from now we've increased a --
MS. BOLIN: But that person that would have been
there, wouldn't they have gotten that anyway?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Every three years.
JUDGE TINLEY: Three years after the first year.
MS. BOLIN: And he wouldn't get a longevity until
2008.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But I don't have a
problem doing this. I think it's pretty minor. We want to
keep --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bottom line is, your
budget's not affected negatively?
MS. BOLIN: No, sir.
i-e-o~
84
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you want to take these
separately, Judge, or together?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Separate.
JUDGE TINLEY: Probably separately would be better.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval of -- of
Agenda Item 1.18 and 1.19, as requested by the Tax Assessor/
Collector.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's do one at a time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1.18.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second for
approval of Agenda Item 18. Any question or discussion on
that motion? All in favor of that motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I move that we approve the
Agenda Item 19.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second for
approval of Agenda Item 19, as requested by the Tax
Assessor/Collector. Any question or discussion? All in favor
of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
i-a-o~
85
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move
now, since we are at straight up 11 o'clock --
MS. BOLIN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: You didn't realize I had this all
planned, did you?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Beginning to take shape,
Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. We have a timed 11 o'clock
item. At this time, I will recess the Commissioners Court
meeting, and I will convene and open a public hearing on the
revised Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 11 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open
court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: I guess we'll defer to Commissioner
Letz for this one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're doing the public hearing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Any member of the public
wishing to be heard on the revised Kerr County Subdivision
Rules and Regulations, come forward.
MS. FOX: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Please give your name and address.
1 8 07
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MS. FOX: My name is Catherine Fox, and I live in
Hunt, Texas. I want to say good morning and preface by
saying, Judge, I want to thank you so much for your New Year's
resolution in the Kerrville Daily Times. Stating that you
accountable made me feel better about coming here this
morning. And I want to welcome my new Precinct 4
Commissioner, Mr. Oehler. I'm here because I'm always here
when there's anything that has to do with water issues, and
when I saw the words "floodplain issue" quoted in the public
notice in the newspaper, of course, that had me a little
concerned.
On Friday, I spoke by telephone with the County
Attorney, Mr. Emerson, and he was kind enough to explain to me
that it was concerning the B.F.E.'s, and I didn't really need
to be concerned because they weren't going to be removed.
But, nevertheless, I was compelled to come, Commissioner Letz,
and respectfully inquire, in my humble attempt to better
understand and stay abreast of what's going on with our
Subdivision Rules and Regulations, why they might have been
considered to be removed in the first place. And if the
County Attorney had told you that there wasn't going to be a
problem and you would have been able to do that, would you
have gone on with presenting them for proposed approval? And
1 - H - 0 7
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
if so, why?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can't really go into that, but
I'll be glad to answer that on the next agenda item.
MS. FOX: Okay. And then I will conclude by saying,
if that were to have taken place, it was going to affect Kerr
County's participation in FEMA's National Flood Insurance
Program, and might affect Kerr County's community rating
system. And I am always extremely concerned when anything has
to do with flooding, because Kerr County is extremely prone to
flooding, and I question, therefore, why the Court would
propose to weaken flood protection. It's been my personal
experience, over the last seven years watching the Court in
action, that occasionally I personally perceive the Court's
stand on private property rights to be so ingrained that
sometimes it forgets that with the freedoms and rights that a
democracy affords, a price must be paid, and that price is
responsibility. Now, granted, this is based solely on the
answer being that you intended to go ahead and do this, and
what your explanation might be. But I believe that the County
carries a burden of responsibility to protect homeowners,
builders, and business investors from those who might seek --
and in this case, it would be surveyors and developers -- to
tamper or disregard with their safety, for whatever their
personal reasons might be, and even if that means protecting
individuals from themselves at times, so that therefore we
1-8-07
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
could protect others that already reside nearby. To me,
s. Thank you, gentlemen, for your time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am. Is the
County Subdivision Rules and Regulations? Seeing no one else
seeking recognition or coming forward for same, I will close
the public hearing.
(The public hearing was concluded at 11:03 a.m.,
and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: And I will reconvene the
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to adopt the
revised Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations. And
now I'll hand it to you, Commissioner Letz.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: First let me try to answer some
of Ms. Fox's questions. I'll probably do it in a little bit
reverse order of what you -- of your comments and your
questions. There would have been no change to -- well, this
Court, as I was -- I don't think this Court would do anything
to change FEMA rules and what that does in the participation
in the county-wide program with FEMA and floodplains and all
that, and that's why this issue was on there. The County
1-8-n7
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Attorney looked into it, and the FEMA regulations does require
the floodplain line be put on the plat, so -- and that is the
reason that it -- you know, we're not a -- I'm not
recommending that we make that modification. The reason for
it was not at all to lower the standard. What has come -- we
have two things happening right now when it comes to
floodplains and platting.
Most of the county -- or much of the county is
unstudied areas, as I know you're aware, so the -- you
establish a B.F.E. or base flood elevation, which sets the
100-year floodplain. And it's -- it's not real accurate, to
be honest, the way it's being done right now. Very
inaccurate. Unstudied areas, you kind of take an estimation
and do some -- and if you were here earlier, you would have
seen one done on a new subdivision called Lasso Ranch, where
it was basically a mutual agreement between our Floodplain
Administrator and the surveyor as to where that should be,
because it -- a creek goes through the property and it's
totally unstudied, and there's nothing studied within tens of
miles of this area. So, that was one of the areas as to how
-- at times it's very difficult to establish a base flood
elevation that's a real accurate number. You can always put
one on there arbitrarily, but you need to get an accurate one
that's real.
Second part of it was, in the unstudied areas and
1-8-0~
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Well, what that means is that
line on them than everything after -- after 2000, and it makes
-- so if someone goes in and is buying a piece of property
based on a map of an older subdivision, looks at that
floodplain map, that may not be right. They're getting
j misinformation, because that floodplain line changed. Just
because it's on the plat, that's not the -- I guess the final
say as to where that line is. It changes over time.
The proposal was going to be to put a note on the
plat that, hey, that these lots -- you know, and list them --
are in the floodplain, and you need to look at the most
current information of the Floodplain Administrator as to
where that line actually is at the time you, you know, choose
to build. So, it was actually a -- the attempt was to come up
with a more accurate way to delineate the floodplain. FFMA
doesn't want that. They want a line on the map, whether it
may be wrong a year from now, so we're putting the line on the
map. So, that much -- the intent was much more to really --
to make it more accurate, rather than trying to reduce any
kind of regulation.
And I -- just briefly, rather than go through
this -- I don't think we need to go through every change that
1-8-07
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
91
was recommended. We've gone over them before, but the gist of
them, other than correcting some typos, was to eliminate
the -- the shared well concept. If you're going to have a
water system, you have to be a licensed T.C.E.Q. system to get
the benefits of a smaller average lot size. That's all we've
done. You can still do them, but you're going to be on a
5-acre minimum lot size. If you're over 15 connections, you
can go to a 3-acre average lot size. So, that's -- that's
basically what the change that we're looking at. And this has
been driven largely by a -- a large number of plats recently
of people putting together shared well agreements that are
being driven solely by the lot size, not by the -- having a
shared well. And, in my mind, that's really circumventing
what the intent of our rules was. So, they can still do it,
but they have to have 5 acres to do it. That's the main
change. The rest of them I think are all typos.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does that apply to all
circumstances, including family-type situations?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you're a family, you're
exempt from platting. If they choose --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought that was the case.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you have to comply with
the platting rules. If they choose not to plat, that's their
decision.
DODGE TINLEY: Did you have any other questions,
i-e-o~
92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
comments with regard to this, Ms. Fox?
MS. FOX: If I may.
JUDGE TINLEY: Surely.
THE WITNESS: Just one brief -- do I need to stand,
sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: It makes it easier for the court
reporter to get it down.
MS. FOX: All right. Let me look at my notes here.
Because, of course, --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, surely.
MS. FOX: -- Commissioner Letz knows more about this
than I. 'Cause I want to make sure -- okay. With regard to
the flood insurance rate map, does the County have the ability
or the right to go to FEMA occasionally and request that
certain areas be remapped?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure, the Floodplain
Administrator can. I think the County can, because we --
through our administrator, yes.
MS. FOX: Do you, by chance, know when was the last I
time Kerr County did that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Most of the county -- or much of
the county was remapped in 2000.
MS. FOX: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right after that massive
flooding, especially in the eastern part of the county. They
1-B-07
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
did a very -- I mean, a master overhaul of the eastern part of
the county. T'm not sure if it was done much in the west.
They probably went to up about Ingram if they did it. But
most of that -- a good part of the county was redone in 2000.
It's usually driven by a flood.
MS. FOX: Right. Well, west Kerr County -- and I
was in the court many years ago, with an issue pertaining to a
lot, and it was concerning this very issue, and there wasn`t
any current data. And I -- you know, we have a tremendous
amount of growth in west Kerr County as well, and I would just
love to see them update that to some degree in the near
future, if at all possible.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's a good point. We
can certainly ask them, you know, what their plan is on
updating, but I think they usually look at flood events as
what drives them to go into areas and relook at it, has been
my experience.
MS. FOX: Thank you, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: After there's a major flood event, my
sense of it, they come in and see where the debris is and --
and take further first-person accounts from individuals in the
area to reestablish that line.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask a question. The
one she's referring to, back then, on that particular creek
that comes in, there wasn't any data at that time. Could it
1-6-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
94
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably likely.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Likely.
MS. FOX: There is no data, sir. I checked with the
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think one of the problems you
get into also is, I mean, it's a cost. I mean, it's a -- you
know, I don't want to get into FEMA's policy; I have no idea
what their policy is, but it's a lot cheaper to go look at a
debris line than to do a major analysis and a model of a creek
or a river basin. I mean, it's very -- and it's much more
accurate. I mean, when you get a flood, you know how much
rain you got and you know what the creeks did, and it's kind
of -- because every -- as you well know, Ms. Fox, every flood
event is very unique. I mean, the fact is that Bee Creek may
get a 20-inch rain at the headwaters, but the next creek over,
whatever -- whatever creek that is, may get nothing almost.
So, I mean, and that changes -- it changes a lot, and -- I
mean, such an interrelationship. And every time we get a
flood, it's a very unique event, so I think FEMA kind of waits
till we gets those events and kind of sees what happens.
Probably not the best way to do it. We can certainly ask them
if they plan to do any in west Kerr County.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
i-a-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
95
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nothing else. I'll make a
motion that we approve the Subdivision Rules as revised -- as
proposed revisions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second to
approve the revised Kerr County Subdivision Rules and
Regulations. Any further question or discussion on the
motion? All in favor of that motion, signify by raising your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. That brings
us to the end of our agenda. Does any member of the Court
have anything further to offer on any of the items with regard
to executive session? Hearing none, we'll move on to the
approval agenda. I guess it's time for the Auditor.
MR. TOMLINSON: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move we pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second to pay the
bills. Any question or discussion? Couple of questions.
Page 11. Is that for one month?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. According to the description,
it is.
1-8-U~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
96
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Page 43. Is this software
maintenance that was allocated? Is that what's being paid
here from J.P. Technology funds?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's obviously a permissible use of
I that?
MR. TOMLINSON: It's -- it's for -- yes, it's for
their software.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, okay. Thank you. Anybody else
have any other questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's go to
budget amendments. Budget Amendment Request Number 1.
MR. TOMLINSON: Budget Amendment 1 is for the 216th
District Court. We have a need to transfer $9,921.81 from
Court-Appointed Attorney line item to Court-Appointed
Services.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
1-8-0~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
97
approval. Any question or comments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seard trial?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, this is Hernandez.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hernandez trial.
JUDGE TINLEY: Experts, interpreters, psychological
evals. We got more of this coming, don't we?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For both.
MR. TOMLINSON: Sure we do.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget Amendment
~ Request 2.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 2 is for the Jury Fund, to
transfer $40 from Jury Meals to Interpreters.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion? Same case?
Interpreters?
MR. TOMLINSON: No. It's Eduardo Medina.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That fund was eaten up by that
Hernandez case, though, wasn't it?
i-e-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
98
MR. TOMLINSON: Sure it was, yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other questions or
comments? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget Amendment
~ Request 3.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 3 is for Justice of the
Peace, Precinct 3, to transfer $1,203.28 from Group Insurance
line item to Part-Time Salaries.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How long is this -- is this
going to be the final one needed here? Only one needed here?
MR. TOMLINSON: We anticipate that it is, but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, 'cause it's -- as long
as the new hire gets hired.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, within -- within a month. I
think they'll be -- this will be enough, I think.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To get through the --
MR. TOMLINSON: To get through the month, yes.
i e-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
99
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why would -- why would we
even have to do -- it's okay, but why are we doing it if
there's not an employee there? They got a part-timer taking
the place of the budgeted employee?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, she --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The full-time employee had
vacation time, so she's --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: We used up 138 hours, I believe.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: Vacation time.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So this covers the gap?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Any more
budget amendments? Do we have any late bills?
MR. TOMLINSON: None at all.
JUDGE TINLEY: I've been presented with monthly
reports for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3, and the County
Attorney through December '06. I believe that's an entire
i-a-o~
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
annual report, if I'm not mistaken.
MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: With an addendum to it. Do I hear a
motion that these reports be approved as presented?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Do we have any
reports from Commissioners in connection with their liaison
assignments or otherwise?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I have a report,
that as the watcher of the federal government for this Court,
as you know, the new congress is coming into place, and today
really being their first day of work, that they are going to
move to a five-day work week.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This week only?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, from -- from this point
on. But today, they've decided to take off because of
tonight's national championship football game. True story.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Great reason.
1-8-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
,~
cc
23
24
25
101
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: And then next	Monday is a
holiday.	So, I just wa	nted to report that to	y'all. And I
want you	to feel comfor	table that I'm on the -	- on the job.
	JUDGE TINLEY:	They're voting it in	today, but
they're	-- then they're	going to take off? Ho	w are they going
to vote	it in today if	they're going to take o	ff today?
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: It's tricky.	
	JUDGE TINLEY:	Okay.	
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: You have to be a	congressman to
I do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You got to be at the federal
level to do that. We can't do that kind of stuff.
JUDGE TINLEY: Obviously, I'm not at that level,
right?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Or I wouldn't have asked that
question.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Take a telephone survey?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think I'll stop at that
one.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't want to give y'all
too much.
1-8-07
102
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other reports from Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. Judge, I'll give
the Court copies of the AACOG's annual report and the proposed
budget -- or the approved budget for 2006-7. So, you know,
you can find time to read it if you wish, or you can not read
it if you choose not to do so. You'll note a couple things in
terms of the budget. First of all, member dues, which is
always an issue, represented by half a percent of the total
budget. And the budget revenues are increasing for AACOG this
year from 30 million to 43 million. That's a sizable
increase, brought about by two programs that AACOG is taking
over. One is the Ryan White program, which is the H.I.V.
program, administering that program for Bexar County,
essentially. And the -- the Mental Health and Mental
Retardation program, they're taking over the administration of
that from Bexar County Commissioners Court. Those funds are
moved accordingly, so that represents basically the changes.
And otherwise, that's the picture.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Speaking of pictures --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is Bill in here?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, he's peeking.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just barely.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's peeking and peering.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Peeking out behind Judge
1 8 0 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
103
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But what's that big old white
thing right in the middle sitting down there?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Big old white thing in the
middle? That's the judge from Bandera County.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is pitiful.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm going to tell him what
you said.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I planned on that.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You were confident I would,
~ right?
JUDGE TINLEY: Hopeful. Got anything else?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. How about over here?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner Baldwin, one of our
next upcoming meetings, will you give us a little bit of an
overview maybe of our own convention coming to town?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Surely.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just so we can kind of be
thinking about it and what you expect us to do for that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Yeah, next meeting, I
will be happy to do that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I already have some
information on that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We need to talk.
1-B-07
104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It has already been kind of
pushed on me to help do some things. You know, maybe I could
li give up some other things, but, you know --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For the month of March only.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- I get to do all these
I wonderful --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just for the month of March.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. Well, we have two
things in March.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I guess the other item I
mentioned, I think, last time too a little bit, the water
issue with G.B.R.A. and all that. That's still working.
G.B.R.A. is being a bit slow on it, but it still looks
promising that that's going to happen.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The news release that was
hoped for by year end did not occur?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Legislature has its own
pitted battle going on right now -- pitched battle.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't know what I can
report. I haven't been here.
JUDGE TINLEY: I understand.
1 B 07
105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I would assume there will be
something to report in the future, though.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Tomorrow I will be at AACOG
heading up the Regional Review Committee that scores
applications for Community Block Development Grant funds from
all of the various jurisdictions within AACOG. There are 29
applications, I believe. There were 25; one was withdrawn.
That was a program under which the City of Kerrville, last
go-round, got some first-time sewer installation out here just
west of town, just outside the city limits. The only
application pending out of Kerr County is one out of the city
of Ingram, dealing with their water and sewer needs there. I
will, of course, be ineligible to act on that. But --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You will be ineligible?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. Under our conflict rules, any
jurisdiction within Kerr County, I would -- I'm ineligible to
participate in, in the scoring.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hopefully you'll be
ineligible on our C.D.B.G. grant coming forward.
JUDGE TINLEY: I hope to be ineligible on that very
soon, as a matter of fact.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But when it comes to the full
board, our representative votes on it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do. I do vote, yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: But that process works. It's a
i-a-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
106
two-tiered process. Half of the scoring takes place at the
COG level, which is what we will do using certain criteria
Community Affairs at the state level has the other point
value, which is equal to ours, to assign -- they use different
criteria. But the -- the total point values which are
achieved that way are -- determine the ranking, and then you
just plug in the amount of money and see how far it goes,
and -- and you stop when you run out of money. But it's based
upon the -- the point totals that you achieve.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, the Ingram one you
mentioned, that's not the sewer grant to U.S.D.A., is it?
JUDGE TINLEY: It is part and parcel of that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: They're trying to accumulate funds
from, of course, every source that they can. My recollection
is that the U.S.D.A. is something just over $3 million.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: And, of course, we're limited per
project by 250,000. And, of course, that is their application
to the Regional Review Committee. But there's -- it's a --
it's a pretty enlightening experience when you see the shape
that some of these smaller municipalities, particularly,
and -- and other jurisdictions are in, particularly as it
1 8 07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
107
concerns water availability, their distribution to their -- to
their citizens, and also the wastewater disposal. Some of
them are -- are really in a big world of hurt, particularly
the smaller municipalities. They just don't generate the
revenue that -- that you can in a larger jurisdiction.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: So that's what I'll be doing all day
tomorrow. And the -- one other item. As I distributed to
each of you gentlemen, we did receive a -- I received, because
I'm on the distribution list from the Internal Revenue
Service, a response from them relative to the Treasurer's
appeal to be relieved of the penalty and interest occasioned
by late payment of payroll taxes. That appeal was denied. I
don't know what has happened subsequent to that. The Court,
of course, authorized the payment of those funds to stop the
further accrual of penalty and interest. And maybe at the
next meeting, we can get the Treasurer to give us a report as
to where that stands.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If my memory serves me, she
said that you usually don't get it the first time, that you
have to try over and over again. Wouldn't that -- didn't she
say that?
JUDGE TINLEY: She indicated that you -- you
normally have to appeal it multiple times, and so that's what
I'm anticipating. But I haven't heard, so I don't know -- I
i-a-o~
108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
don't know what -- what action, if any, she's taking in
response to that, but I'd be interested to know -- to know
that, as I'm sure you folks would, too. That's all I got.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One more question. You
touched on the AACOG several times. When is the retirement
party?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, thank you for reminding
me. The 28th. I'm sure the invitation will be forthcoming,
but it is Sunday, the 28th. It is not Super Bowl Sunday.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who cares?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doesn't make any difference,
since the Cowboys are not in it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who cares?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My understanding is 2:00 to
5 p.m. at the Henry B. Gonzales -- or one of the sections of
the Henry B. Gonzales Convention Center.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Who's retiring?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Al Notzon, after almost 40
years as the head of AACOG.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We need to go. Anybody that
can hang in there 40 years...
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And he will be replaced by
Gloria Arriaga. I don't know if you've ever had the
opportunity to meet Gloria, but I will -- at the earliest
opportunity, I'll invite Gloria to come to court so everybody
1 8 07
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
can meet her, talk to her. She's extraordinarily
knowledgeable, has worked her way up this ladder, and she
survived a really rigorous search for a new executive
director. She'll do a good job.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? You got anything for
us?
MR. EMERSON: One quick item. Responses out of my
I office may be a little bit slow towards the end of the month.
I have two different employees undergoing surgical procedures,
so just bear with us if we're not quite as fast as we usually
are.
JUDGE TINLEY: Another item, I think some of you got
an inquiry from the constituent concerning the status of the
E.B.A. suit. As far as I know, that is still set for trial on
January the 22nd, but I believe there is a -- status hearing?
Is that the correct terminology? Set for later this week.
MR. EMERSON: Correct. Status hearing where Judge
Jordan will address all motions pending before the court and
decide whether or not to put off the hearing or not. And
there's some concern that he might, based on Union Labor
Life's attempt to bring in a new party. So, we'll see.
JUDGE TINLEY: That is the 11th? Status hearing?
MR. EMERSON: 11th or 12th. I'm sorry, I don't
remember which.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
1 8-07
110
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What do you mean by "status
hearing"?
MR. EMERSON: That's Judge Jordan's words. There's
multiple motions pending before the court. E.B.A. filed for
bankruptcy.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
MR. EMERSON: And, as y'all are aware, bankruptcy
froze the civil litigation. Since that point, there's been a
hearing in federal court where the civil litigation was
unfrozen and allowed to proceed, based on the fact that -we're
primarily pursuing the insurance policies, not physical
assets. In the meantime, there's been motions for partial
summary judgment, second amended petitions, second amended
answers. All kinds of documents have flown back and forth,
and Judge Jordan basically scheduled a hearing this week to
try to clean everything up before we go to trial.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? We'll stand
adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 11:31 a.m.)
i-e-o~
111
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my
capacity as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court
I of Kerr County, Texas, at the time and place
ICI heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 11th day of
January, 2007.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: _____ _______ _____ __ _
Kathy anik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
i-e-o~
ORDER NO. 30096
COMMISSIONERS' AND JUDGE'S LIAISON APPOINTMENTS
Came to be heard this the 8th day of January, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Commissioners' and Judge's liaison appointments for calendar
year 2007, with modifications made and adopted as follows:
Airport Board
Historical Commission
Library Board
AACOG
EMS Board
9-1-1
K.E.D.F.
Maintenance & Courthouse
Facilities Liaison
Jonathan Letz and Bill Williams
Buster Baldwin
Bruce Oehler
Bill Williams and
Buster Baldwin, as alternate
Buster Baldwin
Buster Baldwin & Jonathan Letz
County Judge and
Bill Williams, as alternate
County Judge
Investment Committee
Ag-Barn
Animal Control
Law Enforcement/Jail
OSSF/Environmental Health
Juvenile Detention Facility
County Judge, Auditor, Treasurer
Bruce Oehler and Jonathan Letz
Bruce Oehler
Jonathan Letz
Bruce Oehler
Bill Williams and County Judge
ORDER NO. 30097
KERR COUNTY ESD #2 BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Came to be heard this the 8th day of January, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Appoint Garland Reece and Perrin Wells to the ESD #2 Board of Directors.
ORDER NO. 30098
HEADWATERS GROUNDWATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
AQUIFER MODELING
Came to be heard this the 8th day of January, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioners Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve scheduling and receiving a detailed presentation from Headwaters
Groundwater Conservation District (HGCD) consulting Geologist Feather
Wilson on aquifer modeling in Kerr County and present status of
Groundwater Availability Modeling efforts and the use of same to determine
water availability in specific areas of Kerr County, by posting on
Commissioners' Court Agenda for January 22, 2007 at 1:00 p.m.
ORDER NO. 30099
REVISION OF PLAT FOR LOTS 5 & 6 CYPRESS SPRINGS ESTATES
PHASEI
Came to be heard this the 8th day of January, ?007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the revision of Plat for Lots 5 & 6 in Cypress Springs Estates,
Phase I, Vol 7, page 12, located in Precinct 4.
ORDER NO. 30100
FINAL PLAT OF LASSO RANCH
Came to be heard this the 8th day of January, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Final Plat of Lasso Ranch located in Precinct 3.
ORDER NO. 30101
REVISION OF PLAT FOR LOTS 16 & 17 OF BEAR CREEK RANCH
ESTATES
Came to be heard this the 8th day of January, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the revision of Plat for Lots 16 & 17, Bear Creek Ranch Estates,
Vol 3, Page 75, located in Precinct 1.
ORDER NO.30102
REVISION OF PLAT FOR LOT 1 OF HEARTLAND ACRES
Came to be heard this the 8th day of January, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the revision of Plat for Lot 1 of Heartland Acres, Vol 7, Page 322,
located in Precinct 2, conditioned on the TxDOT approval for the Highway.
ORDER NO. 30103
REVISION OF LOTS 12, 13A & 13B OF RIVERSIDE PARK
Came to be heard this the 8th day of January, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the revision of Lots 12, 13A & 13B in Riverside Park, Vol. 1, Page
70 and Vol. 7, Page 251, located in Precinct 4.
ORDER NO. 30104
MERIT/STEP INCREASE FOR EMPLOYEE IN TAX
ASSESSOR/COLLECTOR'S OFFICE
Came to be heard this the 8th day of January, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the merit/step increase using budgeted funds from prior employee
as requested by the Tax Assessor/Collector.
ORDER NO. 30105
NEW HIRE IN TAX ASSESSOR/COLLECTOR'S OFFICE
Came to be heard this the 8th day of January, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve bringing new hire in at 13/2 due to 6 years prior experience using
budgeted funds from prior employee, as requested by the Tax
Assessor/Collector.
ORDER NO. 30106
ADOPT REVISED KERR COUNTY SUBDIVISION RULES AND
REGULATIONS
Came to be heard this the 8th day of January, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations as revised.
ORDER NO. 30107
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
Came to be heard this the 8th day of January, 2007, came to be considered
by the Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and
Accounts are:
Accounts Expense
10-General	$	113,583.12
14-Fire Protection	$	10,416.66
15-Road & Bridge	$	11,547.55
18-County Law Library	$	383.00
19-Public Library	$	36,972.25
26-JP Technology	$	2,825.00
28-Records Mgmt & Preservation	$	1,168.00
31-Parks	$	1,622.37
50-Indigent Health Care	$	27,399.48
62-1994 Jail Bond	$	375.00
76-Juv Detention Facility	$	1,046.39
TOTAL
$ 226,473.51
Upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner
Letz, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to pay the claims
and accounts.
ORDER NO. 30108
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 1
216TH DISTRICT COURT
Came to be heard this the 8th day of January, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-435-401 Court Appointed Services
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
+ $9,421.81
10-435-402 Court Appointed Attorney - ($9,421 81)
ORDER NO. 30109
BUDGET AMENDMENT #2
JURY FUND
Came to be heard this the 8th day of January, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-434-496 Interpreters
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
+ $40.00
10-434-333 Jury Meals - ($40.00)
ORDER NO. 30110
BUDGET AMENDMENT #3
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE #3
Came to be heard this the 8th day of January, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-457-108 Part-Time Salary
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
+ $1,203.28
10-457-202 Group Insurance - ($1,203.28)
ORDER NO. 30111
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 8th day of January, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 the following monthly reports:
JP #3
County Attorney -through December, 2006